🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,